Évaluation publiée le 7 juillet 2020
It's long, prepare yourself.
Firstly (standard start) this isn’t really a game this is essentially an art piece, and the nature of “art” creates a natural magnetism for controversy, argument and pretentiousness. Everyone will take something different from it. It isn’t particularly definitive, It's more open, almost philosophical, and meta in a way which tangles within itself and with its developer.
I first saw The Beginner’s Guide years ago, watching a friend over discord. I enjoyed it but I never fully got it. Every now and then I think “what was that about?”, try to remember how it plays out, can’t, so re-watch a playthrough on YouTube. I have done this several times now. I couldn’t put my finger on it. On its basic level, I understand it and what happens, but something was a bit off to me, there was some part of this that just didn't feel like it connected.
I think it’ll be impossible to talk about this game without spoiling it, so if you still want to play it don’t read on.
Davey Introduces himself, we know him to be a real person so immediately this game is made personal. The narrator wants to teach you about a creator via his work. This part of the overall experience is actually quite fun. You are shown through a digital art gallery, and your guide shares his interpretations on the motive behind the work. You know that he is making assumptions, but his assumptions are reasonable, and he knows this person, doesn’t he? He is coming up with theories, asking questions, and you’re encouraged to think about the idea and process of creation, of the natures of art, how you think about these things, how we interact with, and learn off of each other, and how much you can really know about someone through their art.
The game then takes the foundation out from under your feet, up to this point we thought what Davey was saying was true and this was a pre-determined story. As you approach the end, it starts making a U-turn, we find out that the creator stopped making his games because of the narrator. He would change them to fit his narrative and share it against the creators will. Now you wonder what we actually know about the creator and just how much of the experience up to this point was altered.
The narrative shifts from past tense, a fixed story, to the present tense, with Davey seemingly realising that he's the problem. You are no longer a part of the narrative, It is no longer personal, the narrator is no longer there to guide you. He is directly addressing the creator. You have no part in this, you feel like someone who has found themselves in the room as two people argue. You, if anything, feel a bit intrusive. This is a big contrast to the start of the game, where you were welcomed in to be shown around. You float around, listening to Davey plead to himself for the creator to come back, as he isn’t the narrator without anything to narrate. He admits this whole thing was an attempt to reach out for the creator by again showcasing his work. He has not only not learned from the creator leaving him initially, but in desperation is willing to make the same mistakes again. Slowly, he realises his mistakes, and leaves, leaving you on your own.
So what bugged me? The continuity issue of first being told of a set purpose, of showing a friends work, and then it completely going back on itself and Davey re-labelling it as an apology to the creator. This suggests that he knows the entire time what is at the top of that tower and the real reason why he is there. So how do you justify the change in narrative? It doesn’t make sense given the fact that the twist unravels by changing from past to present tense. The twist doesn’t make sense as you can’t play it off as him “realising” in real time what has actually happened, when you know that he already knows what is at the top of that tower.
If it was made so that during his tour he got to the top of the tower, said he has never managed to get in there and suddenly thought of a way to get in, then that would make sense, because that would of been a real-time realisation. He could then plead and apologise, also realising that he had again did what drove coda away in the first place.
The moral nonetheless is not to mess with other people’s processes for selfish reasoning, that you can’t expect someone else to be what brings value to yourself as a person, and you need to respect people’s boundaries to maintain healthy relationships.
What adds a level of interest though is the developer, Davey Wreden. When I play a good indie game which contains a faint reflection of the developer(s), of which brings character to their game, I'm sometimes compelled to follow. I'll see if they have made anything else, and every now and then I’ll go back and check again. If they have a website, I’ll read it. If there is anything fun to find, I’ll look for it.
After playing The Stanley Parable (a while after it came out) I did this, I figured someone who could create a game like that had character. It wasn’t long before I came across Davey’s humorously put together website. In his blog he mentioned his troubles with mental illness, and how the overwhelming success of The Stanley Parable not only gave him a lot of attention, but despite people congratulating him, he didn’t feel success, but rather, fear that he now had something to live up to. The Stanley Parable had won some kind of award, and he wrote about how he thinks he
should feel, but how he was actually quite worried of the pressures he was feeling standing in that spotlight (this isn’t quote by quote, but it was along these lines).
Considering this you can see a lot of these themes reflected in “Coda’s” games. The press, the stage, the fear of running out of ideas. "Coda", who we eventually figure out isn’t a real person, has the same reflection of creativity and character that I saw in The Stanley Parable, and therefore Davey. Coda seems to reflect the real Davey. There is two characters in this story, so Davey in the game is also a reflection of Davey in real life. You could easily believe that these two characters are two different & conflicting parts of Davey, that this whole game is a story of inner conflict & struggle.
I only considered this because of stumbling onto that blog years ago, and I prefer this perspective. The game on its own has a moral and message, but I didn’t particularly feel much from it. A personal inner struggle however, is something I think just about any human can relate to, and yet that story isn't accessible without external context.
The irony with this perspective is that you assume about Davey Wreden and what things in the game represents him, all in a similar way that Davey in the game makes about Coda (a difference here is that Davey has openly expressed his feelings in real life for you to make assumptions off of, but still).
I personally saw the game as shallow, and I thought it seemed unlike this dev to make a shallow game. Remembering the blog and creating a new perspective on the game felt more “fitting” of an experience from this dev. But again, this is assumption towards Davey, as if I know him because of his games. He could of just made something shallow....
...or he could of done all of this on purpose. Who knows?
I do really like this game. Davey continues to intrigue as a developer. I have no doubt that I will still follow him to see what he comes up with next. I find him an interesting character, and because of this I feel like anything that he puts even the tiniest bit of himself in, will be interesting. I also hope he manages to find peace within himself if he hasn’t already.
For more reviews of games with psychological, philosophical or thought-provoking themes, check out my curator page Psychology, Philosophy & Thought, where we review games that explore the mind, get you thinking or make you question.